Impertinent questions for the PG&E 3 supervisors


Note: The Guardian and I were delighted, after fighting PG&E since 1969 to enforce the public power mandates of the federal Raker Act,  to see the SF Board of Supervisors finally start the process rolling on a veto-proof 8-3 vote. Even the San Francisco Chronicle, after all these decades of opposition to public power, noted in its Monday story by John Cote:

"The move would effectively end Pacific Gas & Electric Co.'s decades-long monopoly on the consumer power market in San Francisco, and it would lay the groundwork for the city to generate its own power in the future.

"Public power has long been a goal of major contingent on the city's political left.  The contract approval comes eight years after the city began setting up a community choice aggregation program, which allows municipalities to choose alternativve energy providers."

 Two of the PG&E 3 are my supervisors--Sup. Sean Elsbernd and Carmen Chiu. (I live in West Portal in Elsbernd's district and  a few blocks from Chiu's Sunset district.) Sup. Mark Farrell was the third PG&E vote.  I  was curious how in 2012,  after PG&E's misbehavior in the San Bruno blast and after its corporate shenanigans in San Francisco, after all the work that has been done by public power advocates and the  San Francsico Public Utilities Commission on CCA,  could Elsbernd, Chiu and Farrell  vote with PG&E and against public/clean/renewable power. I sent them emails asking some Impertinent Questions. Farrell and Chiu didn't reply. Elsbernd to his credit did.  Here is the back and forth: . 

B3 to Sup. Elsbernd,

As a constituent, I  am  curious why you voted last week  with PG&E and against clean energy and public power on the PG&E vote and didn't say anything during the discussion.  I am also curious why, as a neighborhood supervisor, you seem to always vote with the Chamber of Commerce (l00 per cent, according to its last score card) and did so again  on this vote. On what major vote have you differed with the Chamber and PG&E?
I will run your answer on my blog.  Thanks,   b3
Sean to B3

I opposed the proposal because I have a real concern about the potential for a number of our neighbors becoming unwilling customers of this program.  I said nothing because I believe Supervisor Farrell and Chu expressed the point quite well.
Perhaps the biggest issue on which I differed from the Chamber was Proposition A in 2007, the MTA set aside sponsored by Supervisor Peskin.  I played a large role in supporting that measure, while the Chamber opposed it.

I am curious - on what issues has the Bay Guardian differed from SEIU 1021?
B3 to Sean
Thanks, supervisor.  Many issues with the SEIU and labor, and many involving their support of what we call Manhattanization and the over building of projects. The Guardian is friendly to SEIU and labor, but we often differ on endorsements of candidates and propositions, as you can see from Wednesday's edition.    b3
Sean to B3

Interesting.  I have never seen SEIU 1021 support controversial building proposals; I have, of course seen the Building Trades and other labor support for such construction, just have not see SEIU.  I'll take your word for it.

B3 to Sean

Thanks, supervisor. I like your idea of the new Goat Hill Pizza in West Portal  bringing us together.

You have always answered my Impertinent Questions. I appreciate it.  I'll miss you. Good luck. B3


The SFBG may think it's a big deal. The rest of us really couldn't care a toss.

This "green" alternative will be considerably more expensive. While PG&E is already 60% green/renewable anyway.

Non issue. It's not 1969. Move on.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 9:43 am

You despicable lying PG&E flacks also lie by doubling the average dollar cost for saving the planet from climate change.

Despicable PG&E death cultists practice an evil religion and -- naturally -- post under complete anonymity.

I've often remarked that Global Climate Change deniers ought to be made to get tattoos so that decent people would know who to hunt down and beat to death when the crap starts really hitting the fan.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 10:14 am

Now, that 60% includes nuclear which, even tho it's green and renewable, does irk some extremists.

But the 60% is official. In fact, it's over 60%.

Green enough for government work?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 10:31 am

Nuclear energy is by definition not "renewable," and of course, it certainly isn't environmentally friendly.

Figure is 1/3 renewable. Repeating the lie over and over again is still not enough hot air to do any good.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 2:23 pm

I support this law.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 7:15 pm

Actually Troll II, I picture you like one of those paid signature gatherers: sign here to stop police brutality! ... oh, your whole family is made up of cops?.... whips clipboard from under arm... Sign here to protect police pension benefits!....

In reality, nobody can hardly ever know what a Troll supports; but rather comes to expect disagreement.

"I'd have considered supporting this initiative
Until I read Bruce's hysterical, hyperbole-filled piece. This is an example of why Progressives nearly always fail in their political goals - they see vast conspiracies everywhere rather than actually working on a combined, citywide effort to put in place their goals. -- Troll II"

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 8:06 pm

I won't opt out and while the politics around it, as usual, were slimy and divisive, I am an environmentalist and as such - will support the law.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 8:19 pm

I can't afford hundreds more a year. And PG&E is becoming much greener anyway - every power company is, so I don;t think this is a big deal.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 11:23 pm

Even outgoing conservative Supervisor Sean Elsbernd said this was no big deal and that his family would probably not opt out.

Nothing to see here, move on.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 10:00 am

the majority of SF'ers are not willing to pay more for what is essentially the same thing.

Organic produce from WholeFoods costs more but SF'ers will pay more for it because it tastes better.

But power is just power - it's a commodity and people just want the cheapest.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 1:12 pm